Chapter VII.

The removal of other remaining objections.

The removal of
some usual sophisms and captious arguments of the Arminians, of late made
common and vulgar, shall be the close of our treatise, and wind up the
whole controversy, which hath drawn us with violence thus far. And in this
performance I shall labour to be as brief as possible; partly because these
things have been handled at large by others; partly because all colour of
opposition to the truth by us maintained from the Scriptures being removed,
all other objections will indeed naturally sink of themselves. Yet,
because great boastings and swelling words of vanity have been used
concerning some that follow, it is necessary that something be said to show
the emptiness of such flourishes, that the weakest may not be entangled by
them.

Objection I.
That which we shall begin withal is an argument of as great fame and as
little merit as any that, in this cause, or indeed in any other
controversy, hath been used of late days; and it is this:— “That which
every one is bound to believe is true; but every one is bound to believe
that Jesus Christ died for him: therefore it is true, namely, that Jesus
Christ died for every one.”

This is an argument which, to discover their conviction of
the weakness of the rest of their arguments, the Arminians and their
friends never use, but withal they add some notable encomium of it, with
some terms of affront and threatening to their adversaries; insomuch as, by
consent on both sides, it hath obtained the name of the Remonstrants’
Achilles. Now, truly, for my part, as I shall not transcribe any thing
hither out of the many full answers given to it by our divines, by which
this Achilles, or rather Goliath, hath been often cast to the ground, so I
heartily wish that the many operose, prolix answers which the boasting of
our adversaries hath drawn forth had not got, [for] this poor nothing, more
repute a thousand times than its own strength, or any addition of force
from the managers of it could have procured unto it. Supposing then,
first, That the term “believe,” be used in the same sense in both
propositions (for if otherwise the syllogism is false in the form of it);
secondly, That by believing is understood a saving application
of Christ to the soul, as held out in the promise, for to believe that
Christ died for me in particular, as is asserted to be the duty of every
one, can be nothing else but such a saving application; thirdly, That
believing that Christ died for any, according to the business in question,
must be with reference to the purpose of the Father and intention of Jesus
Christ himself, for that is it which, with regard to any
universality, is by 405us opposed; fourthly, For the
term “every one,” it must relate unto all men as considered in an alike
condition, for several respects and conditions of the same persons may
cause them to come under several obligations unto duties: now, there is no
one condition common unto all but only the state of wrath and death,
Eph. ii. 3, and therefore every man
must be considered as in that condition; so that, in sum, the sense of the
minor proposition is, “All men in the world, as considered in a state of
wrath and unregeneracy, are bound to believe, as before described, that it
was the intention of God that Christ should die for every one of them in
particular.”

Now, not to say any thing to the major proposition, which
yet is false, that which men are bound to believe in this sense being, as
hath been observed by many, neither true nor false, but
good, the assumption is absolutely false, and hath not the least
colour of reason or Scripture to support it; and (taking “every one” for
every individual in the world) when our adversaries prove it, I engage
myself to be their proselyte: for, — First, Then must some be bound to
believe that which is false; which cannot be, every obligation to believe
being from the God of truth. Now, it is false that Christ died for all and
every individual of human kind, as hath been before proved at large.
Secondly, Then should men be bound immediately to believe that which is not
revealed, though divine revelation be the object of all faith; for
the Scriptures do not hold out anywhere that Christ died for this or that
particular man as such, but only for sinners indefinitely,
specified ofttimes antecedently by God’s purpose, and consequently
by their own purchased obedience. Thirdly, Neither, indeed, is the
intention and purpose of God, concerning which we now
inquire, proposed as the object of the faith of any; but only his commands,
promises, and threatenings, — the other being left to be collected and
assured to the soul by an experience and sense of some sweet infallible
issue and effect thereof in the heart actually enjoyed. Nor, fourthly, can
any command in the Scripture to believe be interpreted by the purpose and
intention of God, as though the meaning of it should be, “God intended that
Christ should die for thee in particular;” nor doth any promise contain
that sense. Besides, fifthly, which of itself is enough to break the neck
of this argument, all have not any such object of faith as Christ’s death
at all proposed to them. How can they believe unless they hear? Can they
be bound to believe that of which they never heard the least rumour? How
many millions of infants and others, in barbarous nations, go to their
“own place”
without hearing the least report of Jesus Christ, or his sufferings for
them or others, even in these days of the gospel! how much more, then,
before the coming of Christ in the flesh, when the means of grace were
restrained to one small nation, with some few proselytes! Were all these,
are they that remain, all and 406every one, bound to believe that
Christ died for them, all and every one in particular? Those that think so
are, doubtless, bound to go tell all of them so; I mean those that are yet
in the land of the living. Is not unbelief the great damning sin,
where faith is required, John iii.
36? and yet doth not Paul prove that many shall be condemned for
sinning against the light of nature, Rom. ii. 12?
an evident demonstration that faith is not required of all, — all are not
bound to believe.

But perhaps our adversaries will except, as they must
except if they intend to have any colour or show of strength left unto this
argument, that they mean it only in respect of them who are called by the
word, and so it is of force; to which end let it be thus proposed:—

“That which every one called by the word, to whom the
gospel is preached, is bound to believe, is true; but that Christ died for
him in particular, every one so called is bound to believe: ergo,” etc.

Ans. 1. Only the last exception foregoing is taken
off by this reformed argument; all the rest stand in their full
force, which are sufficient to evert it. 2. Who seeth not that this very
reforming of the argument hath made it altogether useless to the cause in
whose defence it was produced? for if any one, much more the greatest part
of men, be excepted, which are now excluded from the verge of this
argument, the general ransom falls to the ground. From the
innumerable multitudes of all, we are come to the many that
are called, and doubt not but that we shall instantly descend to the
few that are chosen. Unto the exception, that that which is true
in respect of them to whom it is proposed would also be true in respect of
all if it should be proposed to them, I answer, by the way, — First, That
the argument is to be taken from the scriptural obligation to believe, and
can be extended no farther than it is actually extended. Secondly, That it
is no safe disputing of what would be or should be, if things were not as
God hath appointed and ordained them. We see the will of God for the
present; neither are we to suppose so as to make our supposal a bottom for
any argument that they could have been otherwise disposed. Thirdly, That
if the gospel should be preached to all the world, or all in the world,
this is all the mind and will of God that would or can in general be
signified to them by it, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,
but he that believeth not shall be damned;” or, that God hath concatenated
and knit these two things together, faith and salvation,
so that whosoever will enjoy the latter must perform the former. If the
gospel should now be preached to the Turks and the Indians, and they should
reject it, certainly they should be damned for not believing that which
they were, upon the preaching of it, bound to believe. Now, what is this?
that Christ died for every one of them in particular? No, 407doubtless; but this, “There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must
be saved,” but only by the name of Christ, made known to us in
the gospel, Acts iv. 12. [They would be damned]
for rejecting the counsel and wisdom of God to save sinners by the blood of
Jesus; for not believing the necessity of a Redeemer, and that Jesus of
Nazareth was that Redeemer, — according to his own word to the Jews,
“If ye believe not that I
am he, ye shall die in your sins;” as, indeed, the peculiar
infidelity of that people was their not believing him to be their Messiah,
whom they saw to be declared to be the Son of God with power. The not
believing these things would be the soul-damning infidelity of such
obstinate refusers to come in upon the call of the gospel, and not a
refusing to believe that Christ died for every one of them in particular;
which could not, by the rule of the gospel, be proposed unto them, and
which they never come so far as to question or esteem.

Still, then, we deny the minor proposition of the reduced
syllogism; and that partly for the reasons before produced, partly for
these subjoined:—

1. They to whom the gospel is preached are bound to believe
with that faith which is required to justification only. Now, this is not
a full persuasion that Christ died for any one in particular, in the
intention and purpose of God, which revealeth not the object of
justification, nor the way whereby a sinner may be justified.3838 The last
clauses of this sentence are obscure. In the edition by the Rev. Adam Gib, 1755, it is proposed to render them, — “which is not
revealed to the object of justification, or in the way whereby a sinner may
be justified.” If we were at liberty to change the “nor” into “but,” a
meaning sufficiently intelligible would be obtained, without any violent
alteration of the text, and quite in harmony with the scope of the
reasoning. — Ed.

2. Because there is an order, natural in itself, and
established by God’s appointment, in the things that are to be believed; so
that until some of them are believed the rest are not required (a man is
not commanded, nor can he reasonably, to get to the top of a ladder by
skipping all the lower rounds), — namely, (1.) Repent, and believe the
gospel to be the word of God, to contain his will, and that Jesus Christ,
therein revealed, is the wisdom and power of God unto salvation. (2.) That
there is an inseparable connection, by God’s appointment, between faith and
salvation, gospel faith carrying a sinner quite out of himself and from off
his own righteousness. (3.) That there be a particular conviction, by the
Spirit, of the necessity of a Redeemer to their souls in particular;
whereby they become weary, heavy laden, and burdened. (4.) A serious full
recumbency and rolling of the soul upon Christ in the promise of the
gospel, as an all-sufficient Saviour, able to deliver and save to the
utmost them that come to God by him; ready, able, and willing, through the
preciousness of his blood and sufficiency of his ransom, to save every soul
that shall 408freely give up themselves unto him for that end,
amongst whom he is resolved to be. And in doing of all this, there is none
called on by the gospel once to inquire after the purpose and intention of
God concerning the particular object of the death of Christ, every one
being fully assured that his death shall be profitable to them that believe
in him and obey him.

Now, fourthly, after all this, and not before, it lies upon
a believer to assure his soul, according as he finds the fruit of the death
of Christ in him and towards him, of the good-will and eternal love of God
to him in sending his Son to die for him in particular. What a
preposterous course, and how opposite to the rule of the gospel, were it,
to call upon a man to believe that it was the intention and purpose of God
that Christ should die for him in particular, and desire him to assure his
soul thereof, before he be convinced either, — 1. Of the truth of the
gospel in general; or, 2. That faith is the only way of salvation; or, 3.
That himself standeth in need of a Saviour; or, 4. That there is enough in
Christ to save and recover him if he give up himself unto him in his own
way! Now, it is most apparent that it is only such as these that are bound
to believe that whereof we discourse.

The argument, then; must be once again reformed, and thus
proposed:—

“That which every one, convinced of the necessity of a
Saviour, and of the right way of salvation, hungering, thirsting, and
panting after Jesus Christ, as able alone to give him refreshment, is bound
to believe, is true; but every such a one is bound to believe that Christ
died for him in particular: ergo, it is true.” And some grant the whole
without any prejudice to the cause we have undertaken to defend. It is
most apparent, then, — 1. That all that are called by the word are not, in
what state or condition soever they continue, bound to believe that Christ
died for them; but only such as are so qualified as before described. 2.
That the precept of believing, with fiduciary confidence, that Christ died
for any in particular is not proposed nor is obligatory to all that are
called; nor is the non-performance of it any otherwise a sin, but as it is
in the root and habit of unbelief, or not turning to God in Christ for
mercy. 3. That no reprobate, for whom Christ died not, shall be condemned
for not believing that Christ died for him in particular, which is not
true; but for not believing those things whereunto he was called, before
related, which are all most true, and that in reference to him. 4. That
the command of believing in Christ, which is especially urged as given unto
all, is not, in that particular contended about, obligatory unto any but
upon fulfilling of the conditions thereto required. 5. To “believe on the name of
Jesus Christ,” which is the command, 1 John iii.
23, is not to believe that it was the intention 409of
God that Christ should die for us in particular, but to rest upon him for
salvation, as Isa. l. 11. Neither, — 6. Is the
testimony of God, to which we ought to set our seal that it is true, any
other but this, “He that hath the Son hath life, but he that hath not the Son of God
hath not life,” 1 John v.
12; which reprobates disbelieving, do what in them lies to make
God a liar, and are justly condemned for it. He that desireth to see more
of this argument, let him consult, if he please, Piscator, Perkins,
Twisse, Synod of Dort, Du
Moulin, Baronius, Rutherford, Spanheim, Amesius,
others, etc.

Obj. II. “That
doctrine which fills the minds and souls of poor miserable sinners with
doubts and scruples whether they ought to believe or no, when God calls
them thereunto, cannot be agreeable to the gospel. But this doth the
doctrine of the particularity of redemption. It fills the minds of sinners
with scruples and fears whether they may believe or no, and that because
they are uncertain whether it was the intention of God that Christ should
die for them in particular or no, seeing it is supposed that he died not
for all, but only for his elect; whereupon the soul, when it is called upon
to believe, may justly fall a-questioning whether it will be available or
no for him so to do, and whether it be his duty or no, seeing he knoweth
not whether Christ died for him or no.”

Ans. 1. That scruples, doubts, and fears, the proper
issue of unconquered remaining unbelief, will often arise in the hearts of
sinners, sometimes against, sometimes taking occasion from, the truth of
the gospel, is too evident upon experience. All the question is, whether
the doctrine itself scrupled or stumbled at do of itself, in its own
nature, give cause thereto unto those who rightly perform their duty? or
whether all those fears and scruples be the natural product and issue of
corruption and unbelief, setting up themselves against the truth as it is
in Jesus? The first we deny, concerning the doctrine of the particularity
of effectual redemption; the latter God alone can remedy.

2. This objection supposeth that a man is bound to know and
be persuaded (that is, to believe) that Jesus Christ died by the
appointment of God for him in particular, before he believe in Jesus
Christ. Nay, this they make the bottom of their argument, that men,
according to our persuasion, may scruple whether they ought to believe or
no, because they are not assured before that Christ died for them in
particular, by the designation and appointment of God. Now, if this be not
to involve themselves in a plain contradiction, I know not what is; for
what, I pray, is it, according to Scripture, for a man to be assured that
Christ died for him in particular? Is it not the very highest improvement
of faith? doth it not include a sense of the spiritual love of God shed
abroad in our hearts? Is it not the top of the apostle’s consolation,
Rom. viii. 34, and the bottom of all
his joyful assurance, Gal. ii. 20?
So that they evidently require that a man must believe before 410he do believe, — that he cannot believe, and shall exceedingly
fear whether he ought to do so or no, unless he believe before he believe!
Methinks such removing of scruples were the ready way to entangle doubting
consciences in farther inextricable perplexities.

3. We deny that a persuasion that it was the will of God
that Christ should die for him in particular either is or can be any way
necessary that a sinner be drawn to believe. For, considering sinners as
such whose duty it is to believe the call of Christ, Matt. xi. 28, Isa. lv. 1; that command of God,
1 John iii. 23; that promise of life
upon believing, John iii. 36; that threat of
unbelief, ibid; the all-sufficiency of the
blood of Christ to save all believers, Acts xx.
21, Eph. v. 2; the assured salvation of all
believers without exception, Mark xvi.
16, and the like, are enough to remove all doubts and fears, and
are all that the Scripture holds out for that purpose.

4. That persuasion which (1.) asserts the certainty of
salvation by the death of Christ unto all believers whatsoever; (2.) that
affirms the command of God and the call of Christ to be infallibly
declarative of that duty which is required of the person commanded and
called, — which, if it be performed, will be assuredly acceptable to God;
(3.) that holds out purchased free grace to all distressed, burdened,
consciences in general; (4.) that discovers a fountain of blood,
all-sufficient to purge all the sin of every one in the world that will use
the appointed means for coming unto it; — that doctrine, I say, cannot
possibly be the cause of any doubt or scruple in the minds of convinced,
burdened sinners, whether they ought to believe or no. Now, all this is
held forth by the doctrine of particular effectual redemption, in the
dispensation of the gospel suitable thereto.

I shall, then, let go this objection without farther
pursuit, only attended with this query, What it is that, according to the
authors of universal redemption, men are bound to believe, when they know
beforehand that Christ died for them in particular? A persuasion of the
love of God and good-will of Christ it cannot be; that they have
beforehand, John iii. 16; Rom. v.
8: nor a coming to God by Christ for an enjoyment of the fruits
of his death; for what is that, I pray? No fruits of the death of Christ,
according to them, but what are common to all; which may be damnation as
well as salvation, for more are damned than saved, — infidelity as well as
faith, for the most are unbelievers. The immediate fruits of the death of
Christ can be nothing but that which is common to them with those that
perish. Plainly, their faith in Christ will at length appear to be
Socinian obedience.

There be two3939 From the particulars enumerated in the
following sentence, and the three objections that are considered, “two”
seems to have been written, by an oversight, for “three.” — Ed. things that remain,
about which there is no small contention, both things in themselves
excelling and valuable, both laid claim to by the several persuasions
concerning which we treat; 411but with such an unequal plea, that
an easy judgment might serve to decide the controversy. Now, these are,
first, the exaltation of God’s free grace, the merit of Christ, and the
consolation of our souls. Let us consider them in order, and let each
persuasion take its due.

Obj. III. For
the first, or the exaltation of God’s free grace. I know not how
it comes to pass, but so it is, men have entertained a persuasion that the
opinion of universal redemption serveth exceedingly to set forth
the love and free grace of God, yea, they make free grace, that
glorious expression, to be nothing but that which is held forth in this
their opinion, — namely, that God loveth all, and gave Christ to
die for all, and is ready to save all, if they will
come to him. “Herein,” say they, “is free grace and love
magnified indeed; this is the universality of free grace,” — and such other
flourishing expressions; “whereas the contrary opinion chains up the love
and grace of God to a few.”

But stay a little. What, I pray, is this your grace, free
grace, that is universal? Is it the grace of election? Truly no; God hath
not chosen all to salvation, Rom. ix. 11,
12; Eph. i. 4; Rom. viii.
28. Is it the grace of effectual vocation? No, neither.
Doubtless that it cannot be; for “whom God calls he also justifies,” and “glorifies,” Rom. viii.
30, xi. 25, 26, 29. Nay, all have not been, are not, outwardly
called, chap. x. 14. Is it the grace of
cleansing and sanctification? Why, are all purged? are all washed in the
blood of Jesus? Or is it the church only, Eph. v.
25–27. Some, sure, are also defiled still, Tit. i. 15. Faith is the principle
of the heart’s purification, and “all men have not faith.” Is it the grace of justification,
— the free love and mercy of God in pardoning and accepting sinners? But,
friends, is this universal? Are all pardoned? are all accepted? see
Rom. i. 17, iii.
22, v. 1. Is it the grace of redemption in the blood of Christ?
see, I pray, Rev. v. 9. What then, I pray, is this
your universal free grace? Is it not universally a figment of your own
brains? or is it not a new name for that old idol free-will? Is it not
destructive to free grace in every branch of it? Doth it not tend to the
eversion of the whole covenant of distinguishing grace, evidently denying
that the conditions thereof are wrought in any of the federates by virtue
of the promise of the covenant? Are not the two great aims of their free
grace to mock God and exalt themselves? Do not they propose the Lord as
making a pretence of love, good-will, free grace, and pardon unto all, yet
never once acquainting incomparably the greatest number of them with any
such love or good-will at all, although he know that without his effecting
of it they can never come to any such knowledge? For those that are
outwardly called to the knowledge of these things, do they not, by their
universal grace, feign the Lord to pretend that he loves them all, has sent
his Son to die for them all, and to desire that they all may 412be saved, yet upon such a condition as, without him, they can no
more effect than to climb to heaven by a ladder, which yet he will not do?
Do not they openly make God to say, “Such is this my love, my universal
grace, that by it I will freely love them, I dare joyfully embrace them, in
all things but only that which will do them good?” Would not they affirm
him to be a grossly counterfeiting hypocrite that should go to a poor blind
man, and tell him, “Alas, poor man, I pity thy case, I see thy want, I love
thee exceedingly; open thine eyes, and I will give thee a hundred pounds?”
And dare they assign such a deportment to the most holy God of truth? Is
their universal grace any thing but a mock? Did that ever do good to any,
as to salvation, which is common to all? Are they not the two properties
of the grace of God in the Scripture, that it is discriminating and
effectual? And is not their grace any thing else but these? Let it be
granted that all is true which they say concerning the extent of grace; is
it such grace as that ever any soul was saved by? Why, I pray, then, are
not all? “Why,” they will say, “because they do not believe.” So, then,
the bestowing of faith is no part of this free grace. See your second aim,
even to exalt yourselves and your free-will into the room of grace; or, at
least, leaving it room to come in, to have the best share in the work of
salvation,—namely, believing itself, that makes all the rest profitable.
See, now, what your universality of free grace leads and tends to. Are not
the very terms opposite to one another? In a word, to bring in reprobates
to be objects of free grace, you deny the free grace of God to the elect;
and to make it universal, you deny it to be effectual. That all may have a
share of it, they deny any to be saved by it; for saving grace must be
restrained.

On the other side; in what one tittle, I pray you, doth the
doctrine of the effectual redemption of God’s elect only, in the blood of
Jesus, impair the free grace of God? Is it in its freedom? Why,
we say it is so free, that if it be not altogether free it is no grace at
all. Is it in its efficacy? Why, we say that by grace we are
saved, ascribing the whole work of our recovery and bringing to God, in
“solidum,” thereto. Is it in its
extent? We affirm it to be extended to every one that is, was, or
ever shall be delivered from the pit. It is true, we do not call grace
that goeth into hell free grace, in a gospel notion; for we deem the free
grace of God so powerful, that wherever it hath designed and chosen out
itself a subject, that it brings God, and Christ, and salvation with it, to
eternity.

“But you do not extend it unto all; you tie it up to a
few.” De te largitor, puer.
Is the extending of the love and favour of God in our power? Hath he not
mercy on whom he will have mercy, and doth he not harden whom he will?
Yet, do not we affirm that it is extended to the universality of the saved
ones? Should we 413throw the children’s bread to dogs? Friends,
we believe that the grace of God in Christ worketh faith in every one to
whom it is extended; that the conditions of that covenant which is ratified
in his blood are all effectually wrought in the heart of every covenantee;
that there is no love of God that is not effectual; that the blood of
Christ was not shed in vain; that of ourselves we are dead in trespasses
and sins, and can do nothing but what the free grace of God worketh in us:
and, therefore, we cannot conceive that it can be extended to all. [As] for
you, who affirm that millions of those that are taken into a new covenant
of grace do perish eternally, that it is left to men to believe that the
will of God may be frustrate and his love ineffectual, that we distinguish
ourselves one from another, — you may extend it whither you please, for it
is indifferent to you whether the objects of it go to heaven or to
hell.

But in the meanwhile, I beseech you, friends, give me leave
to question whether this you talk of be God’s free grace, or your fond
figment? his love, or your wills? for truly, for the present, it seems to
me the latter only. But yet our prayers shall be that God would give you
infinitely more of his love than is contained in that ineffectual universal
grace wherewith you so flourish. Only, we shall labour that poor souls be
not seduced by you with the specious pretences of free grace to all, — not
knowing that this your free grace is a mere painted cloth, that will give
them no assistance at all to deliver them from that condition wherein they
are, but only give them leave to be saved if they can; whereas they are
ready, by the name you have given to the brat of your own brain, to suppose
you intend an effectual, almighty, saving grace, that will certainly bring
all to God to whom it is extended, of which they have heard in the
Scripture; whilst you laugh in your sleeves, to think how simply these poor
souls are deluded with that empty show, the substance whereof is this, “Go
your ways; be saved if you can, in the way revealed; God will not hinder
you.”

Obj. IV. Each
party contests about the exaltation of the merit of Christ; for so
are their mutual pretences. Something hath been said to this before, so
that now I shall be brief. Take, then, only a short view of the difference
that is between them, where each pretends to exalt the merit of Christ in
that which is by the other denied, and this plea will suddenly be at an
end.

There is but one only thing that concerns the death of
Christ in which the authors of the general ransom are upon the
affirmative, and whereby they pretend to set forth the excellency of his
death and oblation, namely, that the benefits thereof are extended unto all
and every one, whereas their adversaries straiten it unto a few, a very
few, — none but the elect; which, they say, is derogatory to the honour of
the Lord Jesus Christ. And this is that wherein they pretend so
exceedingly to advance his name and merit above the 414pitch that
they aim at who assert the effectual redemption of the elect only. The
truth is, the measure of the honour of Jesus Christ is not to be assigned
by us, poor worms of the dust; that he takes to be honour which he gives
and ascribes unto himself, and nothing else. He hath no need of our lie
for his glory: so that if this did, in our eyes, seem for the
exaltation of the glory of Christ, yet, arising from a lie of our own
hearts, it would be an abomination unto him. Secondly, We deny that this
doth any way serve to set out the nature and dignity of the death of
Christ; because the extent of its efficacy to all (if any such thing should
be) doth not arise from its own innate sufficiency, but from the free
pleasure and determination of God: which how it is enervated by a pretended
universality was before declared. Thirdly, The value of a thing ariseth
from its own native sufficiency and worth unto any purpose whereunto it is
to be employed; which the maintainers of effectual redemption do assert, in
the death of Christ, to be much above what any of their adversaries ascribe
unto it.

Should I now go about to declare in how many things the
honour of Christ, and the excellency of his death and passion, with the
fruits of it, is held forth in that doctrine which we have sought to open
from the Scriptures, above all that can be assigned to it agreeable to
their own principal maxims who maintain universal redemption (and that
according to truth itself), I should be forced to repeat much that hath
already been spoken, so that it shall suffice me to present the reader with
this following antithesis:—

Universalists.

Scriptural Redemption.

1. Christ died for all and
every one, elect and reprobate.

1. Christ died for the elect
only.

2. Most of them for whom
Christ died are damned.

2. All those for whom Christ
died are certainly saved.

3. Christ, by his death,
purchased not any saving grace for them for whom he died.

3. Christ by his death
purchased all saving grace for them for whom he died.

4. Christ took no care for
the greatest part of them for whom he died, that ever they should hear one
word of his death.

4. Christ sends the means and
reveals the way of life to all them for whom he died.

5. Christ, in his death, did
not ratify nor confirm a covenant of grace with any federates, but only
procured by his death that God might, if he would, enter into a new
covenant with whom he would, and upon what condition he pleased.

5. The new covenant of grace
was confirmed to all the elect in the blood of Jesus.

4156. Christ might
have died, and yet no one be saved.

6. Christ, by his death,
purchased, upon covenant and compact, an assured peculiar people, the
pleasure of the Lord prospering to the end in his hand.

7. Christ had no intention to
redeem his church, any more than the wicked seed of the serpent.

7. Christ loved his church,
and gave himself for it.

8. Christ died not for the
infidelity of any.

8. Christ died for the
infidelity of the elect.

Divers other instances of the like nature might be easily
collected, upon the first view whereof the present difference in hand would
quickly be determined. These few, I doubt not, are sufficient, in the eyes
of all experienced Christians, to evince how little the general
ransom conduceth to the honour and glory of Jesus Christ, or to the
setting forth of the worth and dignity of his death and passion.

Obj. V. The
next and last thing which comes under debate in this contest is gospel
consolation, which God in Christ is abundantly willing we should
receive. A short disquisition whether of the two opinions treated on doth
give the firmest basis and soundest foundation hereunto, will, by the
Lord’s assistance, lead us to an end of this long debate. The God of truth and comfort grant that all
our undertakings, or rather his workings in us, for truth, may end in peace
and consolation!

3. T. M[ore]’s attempt to
set forth the death of Christ so that all might be comforted, meaning all
and every one in the world, as appeareth, is a proud attempt to make that
straight which God hath made crooked, and most opposite to the gospel.

4. That doctrine which holds out consolation from the death
of Christ to unbelievers, cries, “Peace, peace,” when God says, “There is no peace.”

These things being premised, I shall briefly demonstrate
these four following positions:— 1. That the extending of the death of
Christ unto a universality, in respect of the object, cannot give the least
ground of consolation to them whom God would have to be comforted by the
gospel. 2. That the denying of the efficacy of the 416death of
Christ towards them for whom he died cuts the nerves and sinews of all
strong consolation, even such as is proper to believers to receive, and
peculiar to the gospel to give. 3. That there is nothing in the doctrine
of redemption of the elect only that is yet in the least measure to debar
them from consolation to whom comfort is due. 4. That the doctrine of the
effectual redemption of the sheep of Christ, by the blood of the covenant,
is the true solid foundation of all durable consolation.

1. Begin we with the first, — that the extending of the
death of Christ unto a universality, in respect of the object,
hath nothing in it, as peculiar unto it, that can give the least ground of
consolation unto them whom God would have to be comforted. That gospel
consolation, properly so called, being a fruit of actual reconciliation
with God, is proper and peculiar only to believers, I laid down before, and
suppose it to be a truth out of all question and debate. Now, that no
consolation can be made out to them as such, from any thing which is
peculiar to the persuasion of a general ransom, is easily proved by these
following reasons:—

(1.) No consolation can arise unto believers from that
which is nowhere in the Scripture proposed as a ground, cause, or matter of
consolation, as the general ransom is not: for, — first, That which hath no
being can have no affection nor operation; secondly, All the foundations
and materials of consolation are things particular, and peculiar only to
some, as shall be declared.

(2.) No consolation can accrue unto believers from that
which is common unto them with those whom, — first, God would not have
comforted; secondly, that shall assuredly perish to eternity; thirdly, that
stand in open rebellion against Christ; fourthly, that never hear one word
of gospel or consolation. Now, to all these, and such as these, doth the
foundation of consolation, as proposed with and arising from the
general ransom, equally appertain with the choicest of
believers.

(3.) Let a man try in the time, not of disputation, but of
desertion and temptation, what consolation or peace to his soul he can
obtain from such a collection as this, “Christ died for all men; I am a
man: therefore, Christ died for me.” Will not his own heart tell him, that
notwithstanding all that he is assured of in that conclusion, the wrath of
God may abide on him for evermore? Doth he not see that, notwithstanding
this, the Lord showeth so little love unto millions of millions of the sons
of men, of whom the former collection (according to the present opinion) is
true as well as of himself, as that he doth not once reveal himself or his
Son unto them? What good will it do me to know that Christ died for me, if
notwithstanding that I may perish for ever? If you intend me any
consolation from that which is common unto all, you must tell me what it
417is which all enjoy which will satisfy my desires, which are
carried out after assurance of the love of God in Christ. If you give me
no more to comfort me than what you give, or might have given, to Judas,
can you expect I should receive settlement and consolation? Truly,
miserable comforters are ye all, physicians of no value, Job’s visitors, —
skilful only to add affliction unto the afflicted.

“But be of good comfort,” will Arminians say; “Christ is a
propitiation for all sinners, and now thou knowest thyself so to be.”
Ans. True; but is Christ a propitiation for all the sins of those
sinners? If so, how can any of them perish? If not, what good will this
do me, whose sins perhaps (as unbelief) are such as for which Christ was
not a propitiation? “But exclude not thyself; God excludeth none; the love
which caused him to send his Son was general towards all.” Tell not me of
God’s excluding; I have sufficiently excluded myself. Will he powerfully
take me in? Hath Christ not only purchased that I shall be admitted, but
procured me ability to enter into his Father’s arms? “Why, he hath opened
a door of salvation to all.” Alas! is it not a vain endeavour, to open a
grave for a dead man to come out? Who lights a candle for a blind man to
see by? To open a door for him to come out of prison who is blind, and
lame, and bound, yea dead, is rather to deride his misery than to procure
him liberty. Never tell me that will yield me strong consolation, under
the enjoyment whereof the greatest portion of men perish everlastingly.

2. The opinion concerning a general ransom is so far from
yielding firm consolation unto believers from the death of Christ, that it
quite overthrows all the choice ingredients of strong consolation which
flow there hence; and that, — first, By strange divisions and divulsions of
one thing from another, which ought to be conjoined to make up one certain
foundation of confidence; secondly, By denying the efficacy of his death
towards them for whom he died: both which are necessary attendants of that
persuasion.

First, They so divide the impetration of
redemption and the application thereof, — the first being in their
judgments the only proper immediate fruit and effect of the death of
Christ, — that the one may belong to millions who have no share in the
other; yea, that redemption may be obtained for all, and yet no one have it
so applied unto them as to be saved thereby. Now, the first of these, such
as it is, is an ineffectual possible redemption, notwithstanding which all
the sons of men might perish everlastingly, being the whole object of the
death of Christ (as is asserted), separated and divided from all such
application of redemption unto any as might make it profitable and useful
in the least measure (for they deny this application to be a fruit of the
death of Christ; if it were, why is it not common to all for whom he died?)
What comfort this can in the least degree afford 418to any poor
soul will not dive into my apprehension. “What shall I do?” saith the
sinner; “the iniquity of my heels
compasseth me about. I
have no rest in my bones by reason of my sin: and now, whither
shall I cause my sorrow to go?” Be of good cheer; Christ died for sinners.
“Yea, but shall the fruits of his death be certainly applied unto all them
for whom he died? If not, I may perish for ever.” Here let them that can,
answer him, according to the principles of Universalists, without sending
him to his own strength in believing, or that which, in the close, will be
resolved into it, “et erit mihi magnus
Apollo:” and if they send him thither, they acknowledge the
consolation concerning which they boast properly to proceed from ourselves,
and not from the death of Christ.

Secondly, Their separating between the oblation and
intercession of Jesus Christ makes little for the consolation of believers,
yea, indeed, quite everts it.

There are, amongst others, two eminent places of Scripture
wherein the Holy Ghost holdeth forth consolation to believers, against
these two general causes of all their troubles and sorrows, — namely, their
afflictions and their sins. The first is Rom.
viii. 32–34, the other 1 John ii.
1, 2; in both which places the apostles make the bottom of the
consolation which they hold out to believers in their afflictions and
failings to be that strait bond and inseparable connection that is between
these two, with the identity of their objects, — namely, the oblation and
intercession of Jesus Christ. Let the reader consult both the texts, and
he shall find that on this lies the stress, and herein consists the
strength, of the several proposals for the consolation of believers; which,
in both places, is principally intended. A more direct undertaking for
this end and purpose cannot be produced. Now, the authors of universal
redemption do all of them divide and separate these two; they allow of no
connection between them, nor dependence of one upon another, farther than
is effected by the will of man. His oblation they stretch to all; his
intercession to a few only. Now, the death of Christ, separated from his
resurrection and intercession, being nowhere proposed as a ground of
consolation, yea, positively declared to be unsuitable to any such purpose,
1 Cor. xv. 14, certainly they who
hold it out as so done are no friends to Christian consolation.

Thirdly, Their denial of the procurement of faith, grace,
holiness, — the whole intendment of the new covenant, — and perseverance
therein, by the death and blood-shedding of Jesus Christ, unto all them, or
any of them, for whom he died, doth not appear to be so suitable an
assertion for to raise consolation from his cross as is vainly pretended.
I pray, what solid consolation can be drawn from such dry breasts as from
whence none of these things do flow? That they have not immediate
dependence on the death of Christ, according to 419the persuasion
of the assertors of universal grace, hath been before declared, and is by
themselves not only confessed, but undertaken to be proved. Now, where
should a soul look for these things, but in the purchase of Christ? Whence
should they flow, but from his side? Or is there any consolation to be had
without them? Is not the strongest plea for these things, at the throne of
grace, the procurement of the Lord Jesus? What promise is there of any
thing without him? Are not all the promises of God yea and amen in him?
Is there any attainment of these things in our own strength? Is this the
consolation you afford us, to send us from free grace to free will?
Whither, I pray, according to this persuasion, should a poor soul go that
finds himself in want of these things? “To God, who gives all freely.”
But doth God bless us with any spiritual blessings but only in Jesus
Christ? Doth he bless us with any thing in him but what he hath procured
for us? Is not all grace as well procured by as dispensed in a Mediator?
Is this a way to comfort a soul, and that from the death of Christ, to let
him know that Christ did not procure those things for him without which he
cannot be comforted? “Credat
Apella.”

It is, then, most apparent, that the general ransom (which
is pretended) is so far from being the bottom of any solid consolation unto
them whose due it is, that it is directly destructive of, and diametrically
opposed unto, all those ways whereby the Lord hath declared himself willing
that we should receive comfort from the death of his Son, drying up the
breast from whence, and poisoning the streams whereby, it should be
conveyed unto our souls.

3. The next thing we have to do is, to manifest that the
doctrine of the effectual redemption of the elect only by the blood of
Jesus is not liable to any just exception as to this particular, nor doth
any way abridge believers of any part or portion of that consolation which
God is willing they should receive. That alone which, by the opposers of
it, with any colour of reason, is objected (for as for the exclamation of
shutting out innumerable souls from any share in the blood of Christ,
seeing confessedly they are reprobate unbelievers and persons finally
impenitent, we are not at all moved at it), comes to this head:— “That
there is nothing in the Scripture whereby any man can assure himself that
Christ died for him in particular, unless we grant that he died for
all.”

First, That this is notoriously false, the experience of
all believers who, by the grace of God, have assured their hearts of their
share and interest in Christ as held out unto them in the promise, without
the least thought of universal redemption, is a sufficient testimony.
Secondly, That the assurance arising from a practical syllogism, whereof
one proposition is true in the word, and the second by the witness of the
Spirit in the heart, is infallible, hath hitherto been acknowledged 420by all. Now, such assurance may all believers have that Christ
died for them, with an intention and purpose to save their souls. For
instance: all believers may draw out the truth of the word and the faith
created in their hearts into this conclusion:— [First,] “Christ died
for all believers,” — that is, all who choose him and rest upon him as an
all-sufficient Saviour; not that he died for them as such, but that all
such are of those for whom he died. He died not for believers as
believers, though he died for all believers; but for all the elect as
elect, who, by the benefit of his death, do become believers, and so obtain
assurance that he died for them. [As] for such of those that are elected
who are not yet believers, though Christ died for them, yet we deny that
they can have any assurance of it whilst they continue such. You suppose
it a foul contradiction, if a man should be said to have assurance that
Christ died for him in particular, and yet continue an unbeliever. This
first proposition, as in the beginning laid down, is true in the word, in
innumerable places. Secondly, The heart of a believer, in the
witness of the Spirit, assumes, “But I believe in Christ;” that is, “I
choose him for my Saviour, cast and roll myself on him alone for salvation,
and give up myself unto him, to be disposed of unto mercy in his own way.”
Of the truth of this proposition in the heart of a believer, and the
infallibility of it, there are also many testimonies in the word, as is
known to all; from whence the conclusion is, “Therefore the Lord Jesus
Christ died for me in particular, with an intention and purpose to save
me.”

This is such a collection as all believers, and none but
believers, can justly make, so that it is peculiar to them alone; and unto
those only is this treasure of consolation to be imparted. The sufficiency
of the death of Christ for the saving of every one, without exception, that
comes unto him, is enough to fill all the invitations and entreaties of the
gospel unto sinners, to induce them to believe; which when, by the grace of
Christ, they do, closing with the promise, the fore-mentioned infallible
assurance of the intention and purpose of Christ to redeem them by his
death, Matt. i. 21, is made known unto them.
Now, whether this be not a better bottom and foundation for a man to
assure his soul unto rest and peace upon, than that reasoning which our
opposers in this business must, suitably to their own principles, lay as a
common stone, — namely, “Christ died for all men; I am a man: therefore
Christ died for me,” — let any man judge; especially considering that
indeed the first proposition is absolutely false, and the conclusion, if it
could be true, yet, according to their persuasion, can be no more ground of
consolation than Adam’s fall. All this is spoken not as though either one
opinion or other were able of itself to give consolation, which God alone,
in the sovereignty of his free grace, can and doth create; but only to 421show what principles are suitable to the means whereby he worketh
on and towards his elect.

4. The drawing of gospel consolation from the death of
Christ, as held out to be effectual towards the elect only, for whom alone
he died, should close up our discourse; but considering, first, how
abundantly this hath been done by divers eminent and faithful labourers in
the vineyard of the Lord already; secondly, how it is the daily task of the
preachers of the gospel to make it out to the people of God; thirdly, how
it would carry me out, besides my purpose, to speak of things in a
practical, so atheological way, having designed this
discourse to be purely polemical; and, fourthly, that such things
are no more expected nor welcome to wise and learned men, in controversies
of this nature, than knotty, crabbed, scholastic objections in popular
sermons and doctrinal discourses, intended merely for edification, — I
shall not proceed therein. Only, for a close, I desire the reader to
peruse that one place, Rom. viii.
32–34; and I make no doubt but that he will, if not infected
with the leaven of the error opposed, conclude with me, that if there be
any comfort, any consolation, any assurance, any rest, any peace, any joy,
any refreshment, any exultation of spirit, to be obtained here below, it is
all to be had in the blood of Jesus long since shed, and his intercession
still continued; as both are united and appropriated to the elect of God,
by the precious effects and fruits of them both drawn to believe and
preserved in believing, to the obtaining of an immortal crown of glory,
that shall not fade away.

Μόνῳ σοφῷ Θεῷ, διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
Ἀμήν.

38 The last
clauses of this sentence are obscure. In the edition by the Rev. Adam Gib, 1755, it is proposed to render them, — “which is not
revealed to the object of justification, or in the way whereby a sinner may
be justified.” If we were at liberty to change the “nor” into “but,” a
meaning sufficiently intelligible would be obtained, without any violent
alteration of the text, and quite in harmony with the scope of the
reasoning. — Ed.

39 From the particulars enumerated in the
following sentence, and the three objections that are considered, “two”
seems to have been written, by an oversight, for “three.” — Ed.